> This sounds like a good plan. I just wanted to point out explicitly
> that the errata process you propose is for "temporary" errata on the way
> from Committee Draft to OASIS Standard, just as we did before. The
> purpose would be to allow implementors to easily track minor changes and
> cleanup that take place during Committee Draft stage as the result of
> final review.
It may be all we can get away with, but it's not what we really need, which
is a way to normatively correct errors in the spec after the vote is done.
Going through the whole process again is pretty heavy-weight for correcting
mistakes, if the TC collectively agrees that it's a mistake. Pretending
everything gets caught during the voting is pretty unrealistic as the spec
gets bigger.
-- Scott